RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)
- To: "Mawaki Chango" <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:21:53 -0400
Philip's comments made me rethink the use of 'verifiable'. I believe he
is correct that 'verifiable' could be too high a hurdle. Plus, I don't
think we want the panel going out to do external verification. In my
opinion, primarily what we want them to do is to weigh the evidence
provided by the objector(s) against what is provided in the proposal for
the new gTLD.
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:03 PM
> To: Rosette, Kristina; Philip Sheppard; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)
> Maybe the fact that "verifiable" might not apply to a certain
> category may not be a sufficient reason to rule it out. Why
> not cater for both by just adding an alternate qualifier to
> "verifiable" addressing RyC's concern/wish by the same token?
> Building on the active form proposed by Kristina, something
> The objector must provide verifiable or supported(1) evidence
> to allow the panel to determine that there would be a
> detriment, and the extent thereof(2), to the rights or
> legitimate interests of the community or to the users more widely.
> (1) please, if such thing is available, replace by an
> adjective that would suit (also) the case of prospective
> detriment or rather actual detriment whose _effects_ will
> become _material_ only in the future.
> (2) I think evidence is needed not only to establish
> detriment, but the extent of such detriment 9may be replaced
> by a better wording if not Ok.)
> --- "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I had been thinking along the same lines, but drawing from
> > (surprise)
> > trademark law. Also, I think it's helpful to move to active voice
> > where possible so we can be clear about which actor has what
> > responsibility:
> > The objector must provide sufficient evidence to allow the panel to
> > determine that there would be a likelihood of detriment to
> the rights
> > or legitimate interests of the community or to the users
> more widely.
> > Kristina
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip
> > Sheppard
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:49 AM
> > To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP
> > (h)
> > An alternative wording that may find common ground is to
> use a phrase
> > from civil law "the balance of probability."
> > This makes more sense in an ex ante case such as this.
> > so:
> > h) detriment
> > Evidence must be provided to allow the panel to assess that on the
> > balance of probability there would be detriment to the rights or
> > interests, of the community or to users more widely.
> > Philip